JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. 1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a decree of a learned Judge of this Court, upholding the decree of the District Judge in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for a mandatory injunction to restrain the defendants from invading his right of privacy. The defendants constructed a new building in place of an old one adjoining the plaintiff's dwelling, placing two skylights in the second story and a small skylight in a roofed staircase, commanding a view of the plaintiffs house. The roof of the building also, the plaintiff complains, commands a view of the female apartments of the plaintiff. To protect his privacy the suit was instituted and it has been established beyond any doubt that the privacy of the plaintiff's dwelling has been invaded by the defendants. The learned District Judge by his decree directed the defendants to close two janglas and a window, and to raise the wall of the roof of the upper rooms to such a height that the privacy of the plaintiff's zonana house should not be invaded. The defendants objected to this decree on the ground that the order passed was contrary as the Court was not justified in directing the defendants to build a wall upon their roof. Upon appeal to this Court the learned Judge before whom the appeal was heard, was of opinion that the decree of the Court below was perfectly legal and one which the Court could make and was capable of execution. From this decree the present appeal has been preferred. It is not denied that the defendant's building in its present state is an interference with the plaintiffs privacy. A right of privacy is not recognized by law in England, but it undoubtedly is in this country where the conditions of life are different. The only-question for our determination is whether the decree already passed can be supported, and if not, what is the proper form of decree to be passed. We are of opinion, with all deference to our learned colleague, that the direction given to the defendants to build a wall upon the roof of their house is not consistent with the nature of a mandatory injunction and cannot be supported. The object of a mandatory injunction is to restore things to their original condition and not to create a new state of things. The object of a mandatory injunction is to restore things to their original condition and not to create a new state of things. Indeed it is not clear that in this case the foundations of the wall would support such a structure as has been directed to be made. The plaintiffs rights, however, must be protection. The Court is always reluctant to grant a mandatory injunction but no other course seems to be open in this case. The decree which we think the plaintiff is entitled to is a decree restraining the defendants by injunction from permitting any portion of the building raised by them on the site of the former building by which the privacy of the plaintiff's house is or may be invaded, to remain and from erecting any building or permitting any erection to remain on the site of former building of the defendants, so as to interfere with the privacy of the plain tiff's house, as the same was enjoyed prior to the erection of the building complained of. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the decree of this court, and also of the lower courts, and pass an order in the terms above stated. 2. We think that this is a case in which the parties should lie allowed to abide their own costs, and we order accordingly. 3. The appellant's have not made any attempt to meet the reasonable requirements of the plaintiff.